SOIL CARBON AND CLIMATE CHANGE
NEWS
From Kansas State University's:
Consortium for Agricultural
Soils Mitigation of Greenhouse Gases
(CASMGS)
http://www.oznet.ksu.edu/ctec
Charles W. Rice, K-State Soil
Microbiology, National CASMGS Coordinator
(785) 532-7217 cwrice@ksu.edu
Scott Staggenborg,
K-State Extension Northeast Area Crops and Soils
Specialist (785) 532-5833
sstaggen@oznet.ksu.edu
Kent McVay,
K-State Soil and Water Conservation Specialist (785)
532-5776
kmcvay@ksu.edu
Steve
Watson, CASMGS Communications (785) 532-7105 swatson@oznet.ksu.edu
No. 29
This week's issue:
Science, Research, and Policy:
* Current Greenhouse Gas
Concentrations
* How Much CO2 Do You Emit When
Driving (or Mowing Your Lawn)?
* Comparison of 5 Different Methods
of Carbon Sequestration
* Prehistoric Farming May Have
Caused Climate Change
* Kansas Coalition for Carbon
Management meeting
National:
* Early Activity At the
**********
CURRENT GREENHOUSE GAS
CONCENTRATIONS
The current global CO2
concentration in the atmosphere is 372 parts per
million, according to the Carbon Dioxide
Information Analysis Center
(CDIAC). CDIAC is the primary global-change data
and information
analysis center of the U.S. Department of Energy
(http://cdiac.ornl.gov). This
CO2 reading is an average of readings
taken in 2002 at Barrow,
the South Pole. As a comparison, atmospheric
CO2 levels were 280 ppm
pre-1750, and 369 ppm in 2000.
To convert, 1 ppm CO2 in the
atmosphere = 2.13 GtC. A GtC is one billion
tons of carbon. So, there are
currently about 792 billion tons of carbon
in the earth’s atmosphere, or 6 billion tons
more than two years ago.
The CDIAC report also lists the
current concentrations of methane (CH4),
nitrous oxide (N2O), and other greenhouse gases.
The report can be found at:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html
-- Steve Watson
swatson@oznet.ksu.edu
**********
HOW MUCH CO2 DO YOU EMIT
WHEN DRIVING (OR MOWING YOUR
LAWN)?
The CDIAC web page also answers
a common question: How many units of
carbon dioxide (CO2) will be emitted from burning
a gallon of gasoline?
Answer: A good estimate is that
you will discharge 19.6 pounds of CO2,
or about 5.3 pounds of carbon (C), from
burning 1 gallon of gasoline.
(Weight of C x 3.67 = Weight of
CO2) This amount does not depend on the
power or configuration of the engine, but
depends only on the chemistry
of the fuel.
-- Steve Watson
swatson@oznet.ksu.edu
**********
(Note: The following article,
from Wired Magazine, has a nice, simple
summary of four main types of carbon sequestration
being considered by
scientists and policymakers. I’ve added a fifth type
at the end of the
article. -- Steve Watson
<swatson@oznet.ksu.edu>)
COMPARISON OF 5 DIFFERENT
METHODS
OF CARBON SEQUESTRATION
It sounds like an
environmentalist's dream: technology that can trap
greenhouse gas before it harms the atmosphere. How
green is it to store
CO2 in oceans, soils and
forests, coal deposits, and rock formations?
Here's a rundown of the
alternative methods being used.
1. Saline Aquifers (rock
formations)
* Technology: CO2 captured from
coal-fired power plants is injected into
saline wells. The depth of these aquifers
provides enough pressure to
keep the CO2 in liquid form, and the reservoirs
are permanently isolated
under dense, impenetrable rock.
* Potential storage: 500
billion tons in the
* Backed by: Electricity
producers
* Where: In
experimenting with storing CO2 produced by an American
Electric Power
plant.
* Pros and cons: Reduces
emissions but promotes fossil fuel power plants
-- leading to more emissions.
* Green factor: Moderate
2. Deep Coal Seams
* Technology: CO2 is shot as
deep as 4,500 feet into unminable coal
beds, where it is quickly absorbed. Added
bonus: The CO2 displaces
methane, which can be burned as natural gas.
* Potential storage: The US
sits on an estimated 4 trillion tons of
coal, 90 percent of it unminable
due to seam thickness and depth.
Worldwide, such beds could
sequester 150 billion tons of CO2.
* Backed by: Coal industry and
power producers
* Where:
* Pros and cons: Encourages the
use of cleaner-burning natural gas, but
also increases the production of coal, one of
the most polluting fossil
fuels.
* Green factor: Moderate
3. Offshore Seabed Aquifers
* Technology: CO2 is injected
into natural undersea saline aquifers
thousands of feet below the surface. An impervious
bed of rock seals the
CO2
inside.
* Potential storage: Unknown,
but could exceed all land-based storage
methods
* Backed by: Oil companies with
offshore rigs
* Where:
annually into the Utsira
Sand, a saline formation below the
floor.
* Pros and cons: A convenient
way to store CO2 emissions from offshore
drilling, but nobody knows the impact on sea life
if the CO2 escapes.
* Green factor: Low
4. Forests
* Technology: Plant a tree. New
forests increase the absorption of C02
through photosynthesis.
* Potential storage: Over 40
years, an acre of additional forest removes
150 to
200 tons of CO2.
* Backed by: Certain
environmentalists and the energy industry, which
gets good PR for enviro-friendliness
* Where: The
efforts are under way in
* Pros and cons: Preserves the
environment, but some scientists worry
that CO2 storage in forests isn't fail-safe.
Trees die. Forests burn.
* Green factor: High
-- Matthew Yeomans,
Wired Magazine, December 2003
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.12/start.html?pg=7
5. Agricultural Soils
* Technology: Reduced tillage
farming, soil conservation practices,
increased plant material production.
* Potential storage: Soils
contain the largest reservoir of carbon in
the terrestrial biosphere, about twice that
present in all terrestrial
vegetation. Recent estimates of the potential for
soil sequestration by
75-200
million metric tons of C per year.
Backed
by: Agricultural industry, certain environmentalists,
policymakers, and the energy industry
Where: Worldwide, but interest
has been highest in
Pros and cons: Improves soil
quality and protects water quality, while
taking CO2 from the atmosphere at the same time.
But permanence is a
concern. Soil management practices can change.
* Green factor: High
-- Steve Watson swatson@oznet.ksu.edu
**********
PREHISTORIC FARMING MAY HAVE
CAUSED CLIMATE CHANGE
Analysis of air trapped in ice
cores drilled from the Antarctic ice
sheet show anomalous increases in carbon dioxide
levels beginning 8,000
years ago -- just as croplands began to replace
previously forested
regions across
About 5,000 years ago, the ice
cores reflect a similarly anomalous rise
in methane levels, this time tied to
increased emissions from flooded
rice fields, as well as burgeoning numbers of
livestock.
Previously, scientists widely
assumed it was only with the onset of the
factory age that human activity had any
significant effect on the global
climate. The prehistoric changes in carbon dioxide
and methane levels
have been noted before but were attributed to
natural causes.
The combined increases of the
two greenhouse gases implicated in global
warming were slow but steady and staved off what
should have been a
period of significant natural cooling, according
to Bill Ruddiman,
emeritus professor at the
practices apparently overrode a buildup of ice that
models predict
should have occurred beginning 5,000 years ago.
These explanations from Ruddiman at the fall meeting of the American
Geophysical
CO2 and methane concentrations
in the atmosphere predate the industrial
revolution. Further details appear in the December
2003 issue of the
journal Climatic Change.
For more information, see The
Economist online,
http://www.economist.com/science/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2299998
**********
MEETING
The Kansas Coalition for Carbon
Management (KCCM) will meet on Monday,
The KCCM meeting will be held
in Room 201 of the
800
Midway, in
The group will hear reports
from the Information and Education
Committees and updates from the
Research Committee and the pilot
projects.
**********
EARLY ACTIVITY AT THE
The Chicago Climate Exchange
(CCX) announced that it saw over 31,000
tonnes of carbon dioxide traded in December 2003.
The CCX is a voluntary market
based in the U.S. Continuous electronic
trading of CCX Carbon Financial Instruments (CFIs) began on December 12,
2003,
leaving just 12 trading days before the end of the month. Total
average daily trading volume was 2,592 tonnes of CO2.
Not surprisingly, December
trading volume was concentrated in 2004
Vintage CFIs
with 21,600 traded, followed by 2003 vintage at 7,400 and
2005
vintage at 2,100.
“These volumes were well in
excess of our expectations, especially since
trading began during the holiday season,” said
Richard L. Sandor,
Chairman
and Chief Executive Officer of CCX.
“We are pleased that we had trading activity
from Associate Members
[indirect
emitters] and Liquidity Providers, as well as those Members
with direct emissions of greenhouse gases. We
look forward to increased
average daily volumes in all vintages during
2004.”
The table below summarizes
total trading activity for December 2003 (12
trading days) for CCX Carbon Financial Instruments
Vintage: 2003
High:$1.00
Low: $0.98
Last: $0.98
Volume: 7,400
Vintage: 2004
High:$1.00
Low: $0.90
Last: $0.92
Volume: 21,600
Vintage: 2005
High:$1.00
Low: $0.95
Last: $1.00
Volume: 2,100
Price: per metric tonne of CO2. Volume: metric tonne
of CO2.
-- PointCarbon,
Jan. 7, 2004
**********
MEETINGS OF INTEREST
January 20-22, 2004
CASMGS Forum: Can Agriculture
and Energy Partner Using Soil Carbon
Sequestration
to Offset Greenhouse Gases?
For more information, contact:
tanveer@tamu.edu (979-845-3153) or see:
http://agecon.tamu.edu/faculty/mccarl/acs/casmgs_conf_send.htm
May 2-6
Third Annual Conference on
Carbon Sequestration
For further information, see:
http://www.carbonsq.com
Diego, CA. Contact:
Climate Action Registry, tel.:
+1(213)8916920, fax: +1(213) 6236716,
e-mail: gwendy@climateregistry.org, Internet:
www.climateregistry.org
Send comments or items for the
newsletter to Steve Watson at:
<swatson@oznet.ksu.edu>
NOTE: If you are forwarding
this newsletter to someone who would like to
subscribe on their own, here's how they can do so:
To subscribe:
Send a message to
<mailserv@lists.oznet.ksu.edu> Skip the Subject line
in the body of the message, type:
<subscribe carbon>
Then hit the return key twice.
If you would like to remove
your name from this list and no longer
receive this newsletter, here's how:
To unsubscribe:
Send a message to
<mailserv@lists.oznet.ksu.edu> Skip the Subject line
in the body of the message, type:
<unsubscribe carbon>
Then hit the return key twice.